Wanderer78 wrote: » nope, sit back and watch, people have had enough, hence trump, brexit, etc etc
Timing belt wrote: » Yes bubbles in all assets thanks to QE... The fact that CBI adopted lending rules before the rest of world will help shield Ireland as we don't have a bubble in housing.
Wanderer78 wrote: » or what bubble(s) will burst
Timing belt wrote: » We can be 100% that a crash is coming but we don't know when or what will prick the bubble.
Wanderer78 wrote: » yup, possible, we ve no clue really, we cannot be absolutely certain
Timing belt wrote: » we will have a stock market crash to deal with as well based on these figures
Wanderer78 wrote: » the private sector is in serious trouble right now, in particular sme's, theyre deeply exposed now, baring in mind, the majority of our labour forced is employed by them, si id have to somewhat disagree with you there, and what has our government offered to them, the ability to borrow more, wtf! some private sector industries pay significantly more than public sector jobs, so not entirely true. but paye workers are generally the ones most exposed, its absolutely disgraceful and dangerous. but pointing the fingers at the public sector in general wont achieve much, we re in a lot of trouble here
fliball123 wrote: » I am not pointing a finger at the public sector. I am just putting facts out there that people moaning constantly about our debt and saying it was all the big bad banks fault dont realise that a very high proportion of our debt would of been there anyway even if we didn't have to bail out the banks. I am not defending the banks either they were an absolute disgrace. average wage in the public sector is higher than the private sectorhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/private-sector-pay-rising-faster-than-public-sector-but-wages-are-still-lower-38155326.html#:~:text=the%20same%20timeframe.-,A%20private%20sector%20worker's%20average%20pay%20rose%20from%20%E2%82%AC685,50%2C320%20a%20year%20%2D%2035pc%20more.&text=He%20said%20the%20impact%20of,the%20pick%20up%20in%20pay. Anyway we are getting off topic. Back to property
JimmyVik wrote: » A bit dramatic dont you think
Wanderer78 wrote: » oh watch it happen...... all of us are gonna get a rode awakening when these type of outcomes occurring, globally, we re currently defaulting politically, globally, with virtually no changes
fliball123 wrote: » The crash of 08 seen a big difference in how it dealt with the private sector and public sector. Private sector were let hit the wall. This time around they are giving the private sector the same cushion the public sector got in 08 and rightly so. Just one issue I have with your symbolic relationship. A lot of countries around the world pay in the private sector is a lot higher than the public sector. This is not the case in this country and we have to pay for this via our taxation. I have no bother with a deficit just in how the money was spent.
Wanderer78 wrote: » ...and yes, again, imposing austerity in fact lead to job losses in both the public and private sectors, as neither sector exists in a vacuum, a reduction in one leads to a reduction in the other, it does not work in the way the books say it does, as they have a symbiotic relationship, as does the money supply in both, hence why growing deficits are critical right now. this all neatly wraps up into our current property issues, i.e. this is all very very relevant to the discussion
JimmyVik wrote: » That gives me a chuckle. Excuses for them already even before they are in power. The party who are the quickest out of the block to moan about everyone else.
fliball123 wrote: » We borrowed 210Billion pre coved about 60 Billion maybe even less with the evaluation of the banks that the Irish own as in we sold our shares in AIB and BOI it would bring that 60 Billion down . The other 150 Billion was borrowed to pay ps pay / pensions and welfare. So sorry to burst your bubble but that is how the borrowing brakes down pre covid. As for the austerity measures even with the so called cuts to public sector pay, pay rises were still going on through increments as well as one of the cuts an actual contribution to a defined benefit their pension (a benefit a lot of us in the private sector could not afford) as well as no one losing their job in the sector all redundancies were voluntary and a lot of them came with a golden handshake. Look we are getting off track. I simply made the statement that the 210 Billion borrowed pre covid that 150Billion was due to the payments made to ps pay/pension and welfare. I never said the bailout was due to the PS with the exception of the politicians and the banking regulator who seemed to be asleep at the wheel. So I agree the banking bailout (60 billion) was all private sector / Government and bank regulators fault The other 150 Billion was all PS and welfare.
Hubertj wrote: » They wouldn’t be up in arms if it was in Donnybrook. They would be fully in favour of it and on a massive scale.
Wanderer78 wrote: » if they manage to be elected in next time around, i suspect theyll actually have very little abilities to change much, our political systems are not particularly designed for traditional left leaning thinking, and our predominant government parties, primarily ffg, have shown, its possible for them to govern from outside of government, i.e. confidence and supply
Wanderer78 wrote: » hello hello! bail out money was used to pay bond holders, nothing to do with public servants! welfare budgets partially rose due to rising unemployment, partially due to the policies implemented including austerity measures! what didnt make sense was how the fcuk was implementing austerity measures in the public sector, when the financial issues were primarily based in the private sector! wtf!
JimmyVik wrote: » SF are absolutely sh!tting it that they might have to actually run the country after the next election. Then it will be time to sh!t or get off the pot for them. I see mega failure ahead for them if they actually have to do anything but moan about what everyone else is doing.
Cyrus wrote: » no matter what the development wherever it is you will have 'locals' voting against it, too much traffic, too dense, taking up green space etc etc. If it was in donnybrook you can be sure O'Broin and his pals in PBP would be up in arms, but when its local to them its different.
Bass Reeves wrote: » It shows O'Brion and SF as having double standards. The plan was for 20+ social housing. They want it moved to another site.......where. as well the objectors suggest that 14 bungalow's are build for older people. This is total NIMBYism. It a small social housing project and a SF TD objects to it.
Browney7 wrote: » Have you read the plan and submissions to determine the "maximum reasonable level of density the site can take"?http://www.sdublincoco.ie/Meetings/Agenda/1997?p=1 item H-I (10) chief executives report contains all submissions/observations. One of the submissions made by a resident cited "the only piece of green space in the entire Lindisfarne estate". I've no clue as to the accuracy of this contention. Traffic management also seemed to be resident's concerns.
Browney7 wrote: » Have you read the plan and submissions to determine the "maximum reasonable level of density the site can take"?http://www.sdublincoco.ie/Meetings/Agenda/1997?p=1 item H-I (10) chief executives report contains all submissions/observations. One of the submissions made by a resident cited "the only piece of green space in the entire Lindisfarne estate". I've no clue as to the accuracy of this contention. Traffic management also seemed to be resident's concerns. Gino Kenny (PBP) opposed the building of more houses in the area on the green space. Nearby St Cuthbert's park was cited as being "plagued by issues". Reading councillor Francis Timmons submission on the proposal, it's clear scramblers and quads are an issue. O'Broin and SF framed their submission as a compromise. They explained their rationale for the develooment being for older people would free up family homes in the area. From searching the councillors for the clondalkin area, it appears no FF, FG or green councillor made any submission at all nor did Emer Higgins the FG TD for Dublin mid west. Like everything related to politics in Ireland, "other side bad, my side good". Another way of spinning Philip Ryan's piece is that it is a proposed hatchet job on the guy "who wrote the book on housing" (David McManus SDCC FG councillor) by a journalist who wrote the book on Leo (Leo, A very modern Taoiseach).
fliball123 wrote: » Yeah maybe but they are also a drain on current spend this money could of been used in other areas right now and over the last decade or so. We should not of been on the hook for any of the debt accumulated pre-covid. The borrowings for covid makes sense as we would of had to pay a lot of money out for social welfare and for redundancies if the government had not supported the economy anyway, but borrowing to bail out banks, to pay public servants more money then we can afford not to mention the knock on effect to their pensions and to give people on social welfare so much money that it competes with the low paying jobs available in the country. That did not make a lick of sense.
Wanderer78 wrote: » this is a critical thing to remember here also, i.e. deficits are fine, in fact theyre more than fine, theyre needed, particularly right now
Wanderer78 wrote: » please explain to me in detail, how public debt lead to the previous crash? oh and bare in mind, deficits are actually a critical component of the money supply, by not having them, it forces the money supply out into the private sector, which creates money in the form of credit, by continually encouraging such behavior, it in fact significantly increases the likelihood of further economic crashes or credit crisis!
fliball123 wrote: » Did I say it lead to the crash?? If I did show me? I said it contributed 150Billion of the current debt we are servicing. Kind of puts the 20/30 Billion for covid in the hap-penny place
fliball123 wrote: » No the debt was built up over a number of years leading up the 08 crash. (Benchmarking anyone) and you only have to look the figures of how much ps pay/pensions and welfare ballooned up by in the years proceeding 08. Bertie basically though the stamp duty gravy train was going to go on for ever and based current spending on a bubble taxation model. This is the reason why we have 150 Billion of the current debt (about 220/230 billion) we are servicing.
Wanderer78 wrote: » rising welfare budgets were hardly due to a rapid rise in unemployment due to previous crashes, were they!
fliball123 wrote: » Eh the public service pay pensions and welfare contributed a hell of a lot more than half of the 210billion debt we accrued when the bank bailout happened. Banks accounted for about 60billion of the debt the rest (150billion) was borrowed for ps pay/pensions and welfare payments and people think we are not left leaning
